From:    Kandilokai Ach Ishte                   Area: MagickNet
To:      Pan                                    10 Sep 96 22:55:00
Subject: Incompatibility                        UpdReq 

P=> uh, that was a gimmie!  i just assume it in my beliefs, i should have put i
P=>in .. there's an idea that some people are toxic to other people. i think it
sP=>personality types but that dosen't really explain it much. however, there 
ar
P=>people who react badly to certaian other people. whether with cruelty, or
P=>nausea, these persons are affected by something and there seems no real,
P=>definite explanation.. but it happens.
This is very true.  I have a friend that I cannot stand to touch me.  In fact, 
I cannot stand to have his energy too close to me.  If we are working in a 
group, I have to make sure that someone is between us to filter his energies 
before I get them to pass along.  It is nothing he can control. His energy 
just feels sticky to me.  ICKY!  I can't help it, it makes me cold, and 
shuddery, always has.  It's not a negative thing from him, it's just an 
incompatibility between us.  We are, BTW, the best of friends despite this.
Walk in Light,
Ishte

---
 * OLXWin 1.00b * Dragon's are a man's best friend 



201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Paul Hume                              Area: MagickNet
To:      Jade                                   19 Sep 96 12:27:16
Subject: Re: Magic & the Operator               UpdReq 

Jade -
While I agree that there are formulae in magick (and use them quite a lot) 
they remain far more hypothetical than demosntrable formulae in, say, physics.
Again, the lack of "magicometers" gives us problems (g).
 E = (MV**2)/2 is demonstrable, as you note, in mechanics, every time. One can
stand in front of the oncoming car and yell "This is not in my reality tunnel"
as often as one wishes (well, once anyway (g)) and the amount of kinetic 
energy when the thing hits will remain the same, and be precisely calculable 
- beyond the subjective measurement of the observer (which will be "OUCH!" 
(g)).
 But this cannot be said of the Law of Three, or Law of Return, or Karma, etc.
They remain opinion, no matter how dressed up. We spoke of the metaphor of 
stars, f'rinstance, and you properly noted that the stars do influence each
other. We can calculate those interactions pretty precisely - but while 
psychology is getting pretty good at calculating the reactions of large 
groups,
I don't know that we can say the same for the interactions of those stars 
which are incarnate as humans. And once you add a moral imperative to the
mix, as in the Law of Three (or the Particular and FInal Judgement, or the
effect of Karma, etc.) then there are, again, no formulae at which one can
point with certainty.
 These statements are presented as formulae - as are formulae in the sense of
Divine Names, or Words of Power, which in qabalistic theory contain a "circuit
diagram" of the magical acts that invoke the Being or Force Named - but 
remain, nonetheless, metaphors. No more provable or disprovable than a passage
from Shakespeare or a measure of music.
 I have metaphors which aim me at the goals and ideals I have chosen, or 
which, as far as I can tell, chose me in some cases, sometimes expressed as 
formulae,
sometimes not. M=Th(k/p) doesn't mean much to anyone else of course (g). 
Especially since it isn't intended as a mathemtical expression (Magick = 
Theta (kteis/phallus)) but a representation of a particular approach to sex 
magick.
Similarly, as we have seen, a simple phrase like "do what thou wilt" can be 
expanded into similar, but not identical, concepts of how the individual 
comports himself/herself, towards the self and towards others. Physics, on 
the other hand, doesn't care (at least once we get out of some of the wierder 
quantum level stuff, as far as I can tell from the popular treatments of 
really-wierd-physics (g)).
 Regards,
Paul


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718